[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this on the same order as a square circle. If God exists then it's impossible to speak of existence apart from Him. To do so requires the assumption that He doesn't exist. It's a paradox, or really a contradiction. You have to assume the impossible - once you do that you destroy all foundation for existence itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only appearing as a paradox to you because you are effectively defining God in a manner which suits your assertions. This is circular logic leading to a false dichotomy.

Specifically, as I pointed out, God could have created a framework which has the capability of existing on its own merit; that is, irrespective of him--such as the framework of mathematical truths. That's the "from God" possibility. Or, certain frameworks could exist even without there ever having been a God at all--that's the "no God" theory. But it doesn't matter to argue about these things, because either one could be true and we have no way of proving either. So you can't make an ineluctable case that an absolute framework--even an absolute moral framework--necessarily must derive from God. You can't even prove that God exists so how can you assert that various frameworks must derive from him? We don't know if an absolute moral framework exists or not. That we cannot presently measure it does not deny its possible existence. All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.

Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework, as it does to first posit a God and then attribute that framework to him. And actually, the first scenario is simpler and therefore more elegant.